Why I'm Atheist and not Agnostic

:cheers2:
Always smell the carton before you buy the cream man!

 

I'm smelling the carton right now and I likes what I smells! Fantastic movie!

 

It's the difference between believing unlikely POSSIBLE things eventually occur VS likely IMPOSSIBLE things eventually occurring.

 

String Theory is an obsolete and logically flawed theory, not fact. It's based on the false assumption that the fabric of space can not simultaneously accommodate gravity fields and magnetic fields in the same area, it can... Enter LQG.

 

All your arguments actually have logical explanations. When you realize that "particles" are really nothing but the center points of electromagnetic wave fields, then the double slit makes perfect sense. The extended field interacts with the slit creating a new field with it's own new center (particle). Superposition is an abstract concept of all possible positions because the real exact position is not possible to know until we observe a collision.

 

So many problems with the definitions out there that I usually let people know just which definitions I am using when I talk to them.


Religion - Formal set of beliefs about what happens to the consciousness after death. Shared by a number of people.

Atheism - I believe there are no GODS. That I absolutely believe.

Nihilistic Atheist - I believe that you cease to exist after death.

Agnostic - I don't know what happens after death.

Ignosticism - If you can define the word God, then maybe we can even begin to have a discussion.

I have called myself atheist and ignostic in the past. Right now though I am embracing agnosticism. Because I have begun to believe that there is far more to this universe than I ever dreamed. Good and bad. And while I am still sort of an ignostic at heart, it's a bit too 'in your face' for my taste at the moment.

And nihilistic atheists are militant in their beliefs. If you even suggest that someway somehow consciousness continues after death, they usually get pretty upset at you, and relegate you to 'idiot' status, and beneath contempt.

 

You seem to know your stuff! I always thought it was strange that everyone obsessed over the double slit experiment!

And I hate how the word 'observer' is misused so horribly!

Check out this youtube video when you get a chance and tell me what you think. The idea is that instead of different universes being parallel... they are interpolated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV5kb5JxHWE

 

That video seems to have its own definition of quantum entanglement. It's a very misleading term anyway. Also quantum teleportation, very misleading, sensationalized, and misrepresented. Identical particles are created in sequence or sometimes inversely sequenced and are said to be "entangled", a very bad choice of wording. So then one of the twin particles is sent off in one direction to be observed in a collision. Lets say twinned particle X1 collides with particle Y and produces state Z and this is observed in site 1. Then the scientists call up site 2 and say "we observed state Z", check particle X2 for state Z. How do they check a particle state? The only way anyone can, by collision. So they collide particle X2 with particle Y and observe state Z. OMG, some sensationalist declares teleportation of information. When all they really did was confirm a previous observation of an identical particle.

Entangled as in interactive extended fields, sure. Consider this, every particle in our bodies is "entangled" with the black hole at the center of our galaxy 27 thousand light years away. Gravity is an accumulative force of every particle combined in one body, the earth, the sun, the solar system, the entire galaxy is tied together. The field from the galactic core may be so week that it is insignificant or undetectable compared to our earth and sun but it is there. Also, laws of relativity and speed of light remain unbroken. Any change in the galactic core right now would not affect us for another 27 thousand years...

 

Just as there is "hard" atheism ("There is no God") and "soft" atheism (I don't believe in God") there can be "hard agnosticism" (God can't be known) and "soft" agnosticism (there is insufficient evidence for the existence or non-existence of God). If applied to Russell's celestial teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, agnosticism of either kind would be "just foolish". There are some aspects of conventional religion I tend to regard as foolish, even though I'd have to concede they might be true, since some intelligent folks believe in them: e.g, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, biblical literalism, most miracles, and an afterlifere But there is enough evidence of a "Higher Power" to convince some reasonable people to bet on that prospect. (See, for example, the writings of physicists Freeman Dyson, Paul Davies, and John Polkinghorne, or R.J. Spitzer's New Proofs for the Existence of God). I don't think there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt (or even a preponderance of the evidence) one way or the other at the present time. To attempt to assign quantitative precision to either position is "just foolish". As an intellectual position, I think "soft" agnosticism may be more tenable than either atheism or theism. But I'm a betting man. "Nothing ventured, nothing gained".

 

Well nuanced, Okiefreak. Seems rather evident to me as well No clue about the books and authors though (as usual)

 

How is agnosticism applied to the Flying Spaghetti Monster "foolish"? If one provides evidence that planets are shaped like meatballs and on the quantum level strings are shaped like noodles as 'evidence' for FSM'S existence, or something along those lines, that seems about as, if not more, convincing then some of the miracles implicated by religious deities. If a Pastifarian suggests that that's the way their deity made things and shows it exists, there's no way I can really disprove those arguments. Beyond what evidence can be interpretted from a religious viewpoint, you can only go beyond the texts/notions, which seems you are transcending the qualities attributed to said religious deity/deities which weakens the case for their existence as practiced and seems to make the religious context unecessary. So then you'd likely have to revert to faith on each and the agnostic is not persudaed by the available explanations of the evidence for each.

 

Since no one takes the FSM seriously, unwillingness to take a stand on the subject shows obsessive caution. Some very intelligent people take God seriously, and have put forward reasoned arguments defending their positions. all of your supporting arguments begin with "if".

 

My "if's" only denote a hypothetical defender of FSM, I can't bring myself to take that position from the first person. I would use "if" trying to give a hypothetical about someone using a virgin birth defending the Christian God as well. Sorry if that was unclear.

The crux of your argument as far as I could infer was that agnosticism can only be used in the presence of some type of 'evidence.' I am providing a hypothetical FSM defender, who is adamant that the evidence justifies belief in a FSM. Now if I can't prove that the FSM doesn't exist, yet the evidence presented doesn't convince me, why would I not choose to be agnostic towards it? The only other conclusion I could arrive at is the one the OP takes.

I'm gonna use the word again... If I'm in a group where no one takes seriously the idea of a father figure Christian God promising eternal life to all those that live a life based on The Bible, does a position of agnosticism then become "just foolish" as well?

BTW, Someone has taken FSM serious enough to dedicate a website to it.



I'm trying to understand the logical consistency here how agnosticism can only be used appropriately for some deities but not others in your estimation, it seems logically it could be used regardless of a deities popularity or how serious some might take them.

 

Someone has taken the Colbert report seriously enough as entertainment to dedicate a TV show to it. But nobody takes it seriously as anything but political satire. Nobody takes the FSM seriously except as religious satire.

I had in mind Dawkins' favorite putdown of agnosticism: "As to the existence of a celestial teapot, I won't take a position one way or the other." Nobody believes in a celestial teapot, so the argument may be clever but doesn't do justice to the serious agnostic. I say that agnosticism can be used appropriately for real deities, not facetious ones.

 

Yes and Colbert Report does expose a lot of the cultural folly and bias of Mainstream media... but it does actually report stories as well, so where does that line of satire and attempts at a valid framework blur?

From my limited understanding of it, Scientology on the surface seems like it would fall into that category of a religion that nobody would take serious. A religion based on the writings of a science fiction writer? However, the religion has enough traction to where it deserves a fair assessment of it's beliefs and tenants.

There is no convincing evidence for real deities though, mostly suppositional deities posited by religious theists.

In regards to the Dawking argument, I feel same views still apply if it's depicted as a divine celestial teapot, beyond that I don't care to dissect it further.

I don't understand why a viewpoint such as agnosticism should become untenable due to variables of popularity, tenure, or issues on perceived legitimacy of the Believer's viewpoint.

 

Drawing the line is a matter of judgment. The Colbert report can sometimes be insightful, but I think viewers regard it primarily as satire.

I agree that it's hard to believe, but lots of people apparently take Scientology seriously as a religion (not as satire), so I don't think it's necessarily foolish to be agnostic about it. Same goes for ghosts, the Loch Ness monster, vampires, werewolves, and Satanism (although I suspect some Satanists don't take it that seriously).

 

First I was going to say reasonable probability means nill in a universe where things either exist or they don't.....

But then I thought about quantum physics


i dunno lol

 

Dawkins may have used the teapot and FSM in arguments but I don't believe he made either of those ideas up himself, not sure if that is necessarily important though. It's odd to me that Dawkins would have that viewpoint on agnosticism, based on the one book I've read from him. He suggested that while anything could be a statistical possibility, the odds are so infintensimally small in favor of a Designer God, that he basically makes a wager like you but in the direction of non existence for God. perhaps he just wasn't as 'militant' at that point.

The idea of God(s) has been widespread throughout human cultures but the attributes and qualities prescribed to Gods are VASTLY different, ranging from an all knowing, all loving, all powerful God, to a God residing over the underworld of lost souls, to Gods which are hybrids of man and animals. So this variety of types of Gods (and goddesses) throughout history and variety in attributes, is what I have a difficult time dealing with, the anthropomorphization of God(s) to me comes off sounding very much similar to the ghost and paranormal stuff and even slightly scarier because it's institutional.

I'm kinda indifferent to whether one believes in a God but I think the institutional aspects of religion can sometimes override certain aspects of a person's belief. Like I often hear religious people say verses of the bible are metaphorical or symbolic, so if that's the case and one recognizes it as such why aren't people more willing to read other spiritual texts to get a more cumulative perspective? It seems to me that many religious people are sort of bound to a certain orthodoxy in their religion even if they aren't following their stories/texts literally.

 

Good observation. I pretty much agree. I'm willing to bet on a Higher Power, but bet against much of the content or details of every religion, including Christianity. And I do read the sacred texts of non-Christian religions "to get a more cumulative perspective". My partiality to Christianity is undoubtedly culturally conditioned, but the big attraction for me is Jesus' love for society's rejects. The creeds I take with a grain of salt. Most people don't want to spend time delving into the details of their own religion, let alone those of other cultures. They take the formulas handed to them by the shamans and priests, so that they can go about their daily lives with the assurance that somebody has it all figured out. I think religion is doing its job if it inculcates a positive attitude toward life, the universe and other people, with a minimum of superstition, hatred, anti-intellectualism and mind-crippling narrowness. God is love.

 

actually, the instantaneous transfer of information through spin-entangled pairs has been experimentally proven. Before you try to teach me physics, get a degree in it.